Content
65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-structured, lean overview with excellent progressive disclosure — implementation detail is correctly split into a real, clearly signaled reference file. Its weaknesses are inside the overview itself: the Check/Fix sections stay at the level of general directives with named techniques but no executable examples or verification steps, and the Check and Code Review sections partially duplicate each other.
Suggestions
Add one small executable snippet to the body (e.g., a minimal focus-trap/restore pattern or a keyboard Tab-walkthrough verification step) so the overview gives copy-paste-ready guidance instead of only naming tabindex, focus(), and focus trapping.
Name specific verification tooling and checkpoints in the Check section (e.g., 'Tab through the modal, confirm focus returns to the trigger, verify with an accessibility inspector or screen reader') so the review workflow has explicit validation steps rather than implicit ones.
Merge or differentiate the overlapping Check and Code Review sections — they currently restate the same 'verify focus is properly managed' directive — and fold the freed tokens into concrete checks.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and largely efficient — the Quick Reference bullets and one-sentence sections earn their tokens with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming is possible: the "Check" and "Code Review" sections restate each other ("Verify that focus is properly managed..." vs "Review the rendered markup and interactive states..."), which fits anchor 4 rather than the fully lean 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete technique names are present ("Use tabindex='-1' to make non-interactive elements focusable", "using tabindex, focus(), and focus trapping"), but the body contains no executable code, no specific commands, and no named accessibility tooling — the specifics are entirely deferred to the reference file. This matches anchor 3: 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections imply a rough review-then-fix sequence, matching anchor 3 ('steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'). There is no explicit step ordering, no named verification commands, and no guidance on re-checking after a fix — e.g., how to confirm focus return with a keyboard walkthrough or accessibility tooling. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview: short well-organized sections, plus a single well-signaled, one-level-deep pointer — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md" — and the referenced file exists with that exact content. This matches anchor 5: clear overview, appropriately split content, easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |